[pct-l] Fw: Judge suspends horse packing in national parks (Sequoia-Kings)

[Jim & Jane Moody]

Mendo, 

Please ask Ms. Williams to take her meds (or stop taking them, as the case might be .)  What her lawyer advises about file sizes and what grizzlies are doing are not pertinent to this thread.  She might also consider reviewing Strunk & White. 

Thanks you. 

Mango 


----- Original Message -----


From: "Edward Anderson" <mendoridered at yahoo.com> 
To: pct-l at backcountry.net 
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 5:02:45 PM 
Subject: [pct-l] Fw: Judge suspends horse packing in national parks        (Sequoia-Kings) 


   
----- Forwarded Message ----- 
From: Anne Williams <touchstone at isomedia.com> 
To: Edward Anderson <mendoridered at yahoo.com> 
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 1:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Judge suspends horse packing in national parks (Sequoia-Kings) 
   

   
Interesting, I wonder what the actual violation of 
the Wilderness Act it. Everybody violtaes the wilderness act by crapping in the 
widerness, and just becaue some people ae bad packes, does not mean that the 
whole industry should be through out.  This also eliminates the strings of 
mules and horses going into the High Sierra camps tht the park 
runs. 

I wonder what what their rulling would be on 
SERVICE ANIMALS.  I see Horses as service animals. Dogs on the other 
hand , you can not ride and they  do not carry your gear, let 
alone crapping evrywhere, and chasing the wildlife and barking and biting ( dogs 
kill something like 70 people a year, and bears kill 2)  
  
for some reason , I can send files that are larger 
than I can receive.  And I can download a file that I can not recieve by 
email.  My lawyer tells me that they subscribe to service where they can 
send emails with attached files, and their lients can go to the service to 
download a file which they could not recieve through email. 
  
I find it really alarming that the Wilderness act 
does not allow traditional  activities in the park.  These are parks, 
not wilderness areas, but they both have the same operable model - their model 
does not include people as part of the ecosystem.  the wildernesss is 
supposed to be kept as if there were no people or no impacts from people.  
This is not the real world , but a view of utopia.  I think that anytime 
laws are put in place for unrelaistic ends, and to keep utopia, they will 
untimately fail.  This s a prime example.    
  
I would bet that the very arguments that have been 
set forth in this case, could be used to prevent people from using the park as 
well.  And around here we have the Great Bear  Recovery program.  
They want to "recover" the grizzly bears although sitings of grizzlies are as 
common as bigfoot sigtings. and what few sightings there are are residents 
of canada coming a few miles across the border.  Yet although there is not 
a grizzly for haundreds of square miles, there are trails close by that are now 
abandoned becasue the Grizzley Bear folk sdemanded that roads and trails be 
abandoned to make an area for the nonexistent bears where they would not be 
disturbed.  It is the same thing- what have to protect this over here so we 
have to eliminate horses and people.  they want to make the people areas 
unconnected ( contained), and small  - like a museun with lots of 
"keep on the trail" signs and  keep the rest "natural" for the 
wildlife.  a lot o fthe connector trails arond Mrtt Baker have been 
abandoned, and it is evendifficult to gt to them, and the small people areas are 
so over used and permitted that it is alarming.  The people do not have 
poor wilderness skills, the parks have poor management 
skills. 
_______________________________________________ 
Pct-L mailing list 
Pct-L at backcountry.net 
To unsubcribe, or change options visit: 
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l 

List Archives: 
http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/ 
All content is copyrighted by the respective authors. 
Reproduction is prohibited without express permission.